What do you think of the argument that absolute monarchy is preferable to democracy?

I've been reading the book 'Democracy the God that Failed'
the authors argument is basically:

Monarchs privately own the state and so want to increase its value over time, in order to either sell parts off or leave to their heir.
This promotes a long term view of economic policy.
It also means consistent legislation (as rival parties aren't constantly changing the rule book) which leads to lower time preferences and investment in longer productions, creating higher yields of goods, reducing the cost of living.
As the monarch privately owns the state, in order to gain legitimacy they must also respect individual property rights.
Taxes will be low as the monarch realizes they will get more out of the people in the long run, rather than bleeding them dry in the short run.
Warfare under monarchy is a private affair involving paid mercenaries not conscripted citizens.

Democratic governments are temporary owners of the state apparatus and so want extract as much value as possible now as they wont have the opportunity to do so later.
Additionally, rather than leaving the state to their heir they leave it to their political rival, which means they have even less regard to what state it is in when handed over.

Competition is only good when it's in the production of good things. Only the worst most cunning politicians reach the top of the greasy pole. Whereas, under a monarchy you may (by accident of birth) have a good leader.